See Koshinski v. Trame on the "public importance exception" to the standing requirement. It involves ex parte proceedings. Several terms for it, one meaning: the importance of the issue, the likeliness it'll occur again, and again, and again, outweighs mootness. Balancing.
Link to post in Judicial:
Fifth District Appellate Court decision:
plaintiff, David Koshinski, filed an action challenging the constitutionality of two firearm licensing statutes, section 8.2 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOID Card Act) (430 ILCS 65/8.2 (West 2014)), and section 70(
of the Firearm Concealed Carry Act (430 ILCS 66/70(
(West 2014)), which temporarily revoked, without giving him notice or an opportunity to be heard, his right to possess firearms as a result of an emergency order of protection entered against him. Because the defendant, Jessica Trame, in her official capacity as chief of the Firearms Services Bureau of the Department of State Police, had restored the plaintiff’s right to possess firearms prior to the hearing on his action, the circuit court dismissed the plaintiff’s action as moot. For the, following reasons, we reverse the circuit court’s dismissal order, and we remand the cause for further proceedings."
"Further, the role of the defendant, as chief of the Firearms Services Bureau, in executing the provisions of the firearm suspension statutes is a recurring question. See People ex rel. Department of Corrections v. Fort, 352 Ill. App. 3d 309, 314 (2004) (issue regarding propriety of force to monitor and/or force feed inmate on hunger strike, was properly reviewed under public interest exception to mootness doctrine because whether an inmate may starve to death while under the care of the Department of Corrections was a matter of public importance and the role of the Department in these situations was a recurring question); see also People ex rel. Department of Corrections v. Millard, 335 Ill. App. 3d 1066, 1070 (2003) (same). Thus, this question is likely to, recur. Because this case meets the requirements of the public interest exception to the mootness, doctrine, we find that the circuit court improperly dismissed it as moot."
Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk